In this chapter, we argue that the existing discourse about complicity requires a deeper understanding of the rhetoric associated with the model minority myth, and a deeper analysis of the meaning of complicity, especially as it pertains to identity and the politics of representation. Using in depth interviews with four Asians living in the Northeast of the United States, we present findings from
... [Show full abstract] a phenomenological study of the experiences of Asians in order to explore cultural dimensions of the MMM which are often left unchallenged in popular rhetoric surrounding the stereotype. In so doing, we reveal the paradoxical nature of complicity and posit that complicit behavior is complex, neither straightforward or uni-dimensional - a chaotic intersection of twists and turns, both intentional and unintentional, and driven by larger systemic processes. We illustrate that bi-furcation of the model minority myth and complicity into mutually exclusive views (i.e. – Asians are model citizens or not, and are complicit in promoting this or not) -- fails to fully capture the particular experiences and identities of the Asians we interviewed. Our analytic and epistemological lens stems from a combination of multiple perspectives to include critical race theories, theories of rhetoric, coherence, and reconciliation advanced by communication scholars, as well as legal philosophy delineated within anti-discrimination laws and jurisprudence. Suggestions for further research is offered.